To those attending the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such as in Manitou Springs, Colo., where high water barreled down mountain highways last year, carrying cars along with it.

“They had never seen anything like this in Manitou Springs,” Gore said.

He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power, and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world’s food supply.

Gore presented animation from his 2006 film depicting water pushing into the streets of lower Manhattan — much mocked at the time, Gore said — followed by images of water filling New York City subway tunnels during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012.

Gore conceded the possible fatigue some may have with his warnings, as well as the possible sense of powerlessness as to what any one individual can do to affect what appear to be vast, unchangeable trends.

“Do we really have to do this and — if the answer is yes — can we do it?” Gore said, repeating two questions he routinely hears.

“The answer to both of those questions — spoiler alert — is ‘yes.’ ”

Gore cited what he considered the increasing momentum with which renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power have been embraced.

Just as one telephone company study 25 years ago underestimated the huge increase in the use of cellphones, estimates on the acceptance of wind and solar technology also have been conservative, Gore said.

Among the countries or states turning to renewable energy strategies, Gore mentioned the Vatican’s increasing use of solar technology. Vatican City, Gore said, wants to be the first CO2-neutral sovereign city-state in the world.

“They have two advantages,” Gore said. “It is very small, and they have God on their side.”

He urged his listeners to act on an individual basis.

“The one missing ingredient may well be you, no kidding,” he said.

And, given how he was addressing a room filled with folk music admirers, Gore framed his remarks with references to two singers: Bob Dylan and the late Pete Seeger. Reciting a phrase from “The Times They Are a-Changin’ ” and later invoking Seeger’s memory, Gore urged those in attendance to write songs and spread a renewable energy message “all over this land.”

Folk music, he added, “played a positive role in resolving the central question in civil rights, as to what was truly right and truly wrong.”

Do you think NASA, along with those other listed scientific institutions, are religious in their belief that climate change is happening and humans are contributing?

Honestly, yes some of them come across as zealots. When you read some of their statements in the press vs what's in the actual reports they produce, they are closer to Gore than scientists. Hopefully the zealots are in the minority.

Honestly, yes some of them come across as zealots. When you read some of their statements in the press vs what's in the actual reports they produce, they are closer to Gore than scientists. Hopefully the zealots are in the minority.

In this post we will evaluate this contrarian claim by comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We will see what the peer-reviewed scientific literature has to say on the subject, and show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).

The IPCC projections are derived from climate models. Using both tide gauge and satellite data, we can see that sea levels are rising. Unfortunately, sea level rise is already tracking the worst-case projections, as this graph shows:

In fact, the climate models underestimated the rate of sea level rise because the rapid melting of the ice sheets and glaciers was not incorporated in the last IPCC report. (It was left out because the data were not considered sufficiently robust).

IPCC? Aren't those the chaps who took a little liberty with their data?

Also... other models have accurately predicted the same...

Quote:

Figure 4: Sea level hindcasts and projections for different models calibrated with different temperature and sea level data. The error bars on the right indicate 90% confidence intervals (5–95 percentile, using the GISS temperature dataset); for the proxy-based projection the uncertainty is as presented in Kemp et al., 2011. (Rahmstorf 2011)

Both "Global warming" and "Climate change" have been used independently for a long time. Yes, there's been much confusion about that, and some people claim that the name was changed. But that's not really the case:

Quote:

There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

I agree to the extent that I don't believe that human activity doesn't influence our environment. Do I believe the tripe that Gore is spouting off in the OP? No, I don't, because he's demonstrably wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Both "Global warming" and "Climate change" have been used independently for a long time. Yes, there's been much confusion about that, and some people claim that the name was changed. But that's not really the case:

That's possible, I suppose, but you'd agree that the use of "global warming" has dropped significantly over the last few years, yes? If so, what was the reason for the change?

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?